Goldberg: Akin's idiocy leads to theatrical outrage

Todd Akin’s idiocy appears to be infectious. The evil genius of the Missouri congressman’s comments is they lend themselves to such broad interpretations — and misinterpretations.

By now his remarks are familiar, but just in case ...

Akin told a local TV interviewer: “First of all, from what I understand from doctors, pregnancy from rape is really rare.” He continued: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

My own take is there’s a dual-core of asininity here. First, Akin’s formulation makes it sound like if an “alleged” rape victim is pregnant, it must mean she wasn’t really raped, like she was either asking for it or lying. After all, real rape victims don’t get pregnant.

I cannot imagine how infuriating it would be for a rape victim to have her rape claim dismissed by her pregnancy.

But even here, Akin couldn’t stick the landing of his own buffoonery. Because he doesn’t claim this is a universal scientific truth, just a rule of thumb. It’s “really rare” — he says — for “legitimate” rape victims to get pregnant.

I’ll let the doctors and statisticians debate that one. But let’s say it’s true. What’s Akin’s point then? We already knew that abortions stemming from rape are statistically rare. People have been talking about pro-life exceptions for the “rare instances of rape and incest” since Roe v. Wade was decided. But the rareness of such instances doesn’t change the moral questions one iota.

To bring up frequency makes it sound like it’s all a numbers game, which is wholly contrary to the principled pro-life argument. If the argument is a fetus is an independent being deserving of life, rareness is a red herring. Conversely, if it’s cruel to force a woman to carry a rapist’s child to term, rareness is a red herring.

And besides, whatever the absolute numbers might be, if you’re a woman who’s been raped and impregnated, 100 percent of you has been affected.

But these are just my biggest objections to Akin’s comments. Such is the Rorschach nature of Akin’s jackassery that they apparently lend credence to countless other interpretations.

I was one of the millions of Americans on the receiving end of an email from Sandra Fluke, the feminist activist who parlayed a non- invitation to a congressional hearing into full-blown feminist martyr status.

Freed from the requirement of using logic, Fluke insists Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are in “lockstep” with Akin, despite the fact both of them publicly repudiated the man and pleaded with him to drop out of his race for the Senate.

She, like her fellow party henchmen and henchwomen, does this by making it sound as if Akin’s offense is being against abortion in cases of rape and incest — just like Romney and Ryan!

There’s nothing outrageous about opposing this view, but that simply isn’t Akin’s outrage. Oh, and it’s not Romney’s position (or Ryan’s now that he’s joined the ticket).

Another common explanation for Akin’s gaffe is he meant “forcible rape” as opposed to other kinds of rape. This has sparked a bonfire of feigned ignorance. How could anyone think there are different kinds of rape? One is tempted to quote Whoopi Goldberg (no relation), who dismissed Roman Polanski’s crime of drugging a teenage girl and then sodomizing her. It wasn’t “rape-rape,” according to Goldberg.

But I found her views repugnant then, so I won’t rely on them now. Nor will I fire up the way-back machine to recount all of the things President Bill Clinton and Sen. Ted Kennedy were accused of doing — as opposed to merely saying — and how many of the same people now shocked over the phrase “legitimate rape” were quick to delegitimize such accusations.

Suffice it to say, the law has distinguished between various forms and degrees of rape for a very long time. Statutory rape, for instance, may be entirely nonforcible and consensual.

The simple fact is the theatrical outrage — on both sides of the political aisle — is only partly attributable to the actual outrageousness of Akin’s comments. Much of it has to do with the fact Republicans are desperate not to lose a senate Seat they thought they had in the bag (and which could hold the deciding vote on Obamacare’s repeal).

And Democrats are just as giddy about saving the seat — and hanging Akin around Mitt Romney’s neck.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Women should be outraged at what Akin said & any moron who agrees with him. When will men realize that no one needs to hear them diminish & dismiss rape and/or rape survivors? The audacity of any man to say a rape or incest survivor they should just suck it up & carry a child created in such violence to term.
When men can get pregnant from rape then, and only then, do they have any right to weigh in on this matter.

would be the nominee and would set the policy of the ticket- not that he had changed his belief. Tossing Clinton and Kennedy into a discussion of rape and outlawing abortion is as red as herrings get. Their moral failings did not involve force, underage women or abortions.

One way to interpret Akin's remarks- and they were what he meant to say and what he believes, not a misstatement- is that he is a medical ignoramus and actually thinks what he said is scientifically correct. The other interpretation is that he said it with evil intent, to support his position that rape should not be an exception to banning abortion, even though he knew his statement to be false. There is no third option.

Paul Ryan has been in complete agreement with Akin's position that there should be no exceptions to the abortion ban, and he has never altered that view. He did say that Romney would be the nominee and set policy for the ticket, but he didn't withdraw from his previous position at all. Romney was pro-choice in Massachusetts, now is pro-life but willing to make exceptions for rape, incest and threats to the mother's life, and is about to accept the nomination of a party whose platform calls for no exceptions to the ban. Romney says it's the party's platform, not his, but made no effort to object to the no-exception feature when the platform committee met last week. I don't know what he really believes or will propose if elected; someone better ask.

Since Roe V Wade was a supreme court decision that abortion is a right under two different articles of the constitution as well as privacy, what would it take to make abortion illegal? Legislation by the congress? How long would that take and what are the odds that legislation like that would ever pass or get to the President's desk for him to sign. that would mean that both the house and the senate would have to have a majority of pro life members which is not likely to happen. No president or vice president is a king who can declare something legal or illegal so what difference does it make what they are or their party believe about abortion? The concern about this issue would seem to be better focused on the state level where laws are more easily passed that effect abortion.

If legislation were passed and signed how long does anybody think it would take for lawsuits to be filed by women that would end up in the supreme court again. Roe V Wade was filed in 1970 and took three years for the court to render a decision.

Point being that all of the noise about who believes what about abortion in an election doesn't seem to be something that should factor into any decision other than if people just want to vote for someone who believes the same way they do.

It is not likely that Roe V Wade would be overturned during any presidents term of office so why not focus on making a decision in an election as to what a president has the power to do. As far as the VP. Take a look at Biden, how much influence do you think he has on policy or ammendments to the constitution.

It wouldn't matter if legislation were passed and signed, if it runs counter to Roe v. Wade, it would be enjoined by some federal judge unless and until it made it to the Supreme Court and a decision overturned Roe v. Wade to allow enforcement of the new law. Other than a Supreme Court decision, the only other way to change things would be a Constitutional Amendment. There are a couple of hundred proposed in Congress every year. Only 27 have been approved since 1789 (including #1-10, the Bill of Rights). There is another mechanism which bypasses Congress, a constitutional convention, but that has never happened. And states can't override the federal law either.

Abortion clinics should have a full compliment of trained, certified medical staff.

They should also be required to have a second opinion on the age of the baby before declaring the ultrasound shows a baby within the legal ages that they can be killed. This should be at an outside facility.

The clinics should be just as clean as a licensed medical care center, and licensed.

I'm betting a few sharp minds could regulate the abortion industry into bankruptcy.

you are correct it didn't seem worth the bandwith to take it all the way to the ground.

Ayn, i have no problem with outrage by women who are pro choice but i think as a practical matter of what it would actually take to overturn Roe V. Wade it is somewhat of a moot point so is hardly worth all the angst when many women seem to think that if a politician is pro life their choice to have or not have an abortion is gong to be taken away the day after an election.

The concerning thing to me about the pro life group is that they are not satisfied to make their own decision they want to make the decision for everyone. As it stands now every woman can make her own decision and i don't see much threat that something that has been declared a constitutional right is going to be overturned anytime soon based on what it would take to overturn it.

As far as Akin, he is an ignoramus. my take with people like Akin is that they simply need to be ridiculed and written of as to what they are, ignorant fools. He is done anyway.

The idea that the government can regulate "abortion clinics" out of business is also problematic. The court has ruled that government barriers erected to slow down a woman in her decision to carry out an abortion are unconstitutional.

As stated above the reality of the abortion question is that there is no clear majority in favor of, or opposed to abortion. It is political kryptonite.

Politicians, especially during an election, make all kinds of promises and even threats, that they know they cannot or have no intention of keeping.
Someone said, pay no attention to what they say, look at what they have done.